Eric Schiller: <maxx> I don't think the WO is like Europe at all. It is the opposite. European festivals draw those who love chess. WO attracts those who play for money. European entry fees are less than half what WO charges, and the prizes for non-masters are much more reasonable (lower).

I'd never play in WO rather than European festivals and don't recommend it for those looking to have an enjoyable experience. WO is all about the money, nothing else.

I said that the WO is "the closest thing we have" to a chess festival, thinking of the large turnout, side events, blitz room, GM analysis room, and the atmosphere of excitement. The Amateur Team tournaments are more like a European Chess festival with respect to your criticism, perhaps.

I've never been to one of these European events, and I imagine that you have, so I'm inclined to defer to you if you say that the WO is nothing like them. I suspect, sadly, that we really don't have anything like them in the US system, though.

Eric Schiller: <Maxx> We used to: Lone Pine, Paul Masson, Hawaii Internationals, but no more except the U.S. Open and National Open in Las Vegas, though that is 2 games per day so it isn't quite the same.

At a festival there is plenty of time for sightseeing and preparing for the next game. The hotels are nice and the food is great, not fast food crap consumed at most American big Swisses. There are plenty of arbiters, and they stay in the playing halls. All games are recorded and made available online.

The best of these seem to be Gibraltar, in Jan/Feb, and Cannes and Andorra, Italian and perhaps India.

dazone3: <Jim Bartle> Well, for one, monetary considerations seem to take precedence over enjoying the game of chess, getting to know your opponents, or actually improving/learning from your play. Let me give an example.

Going into the last round in the U1800 section this year, I was playing on board two with a shot at second place (predictably, first was taken by someone who won the first 8 games and drew the last, someone who hadn't played in a rated tournament since 1999 sans 5 games earlier this year to test the waters, someone who by his own admission studied and played on ICC constantly). What would you imagine that the players on the top 3 boards would discuss prior to the round starting? It wasn't openings, it wasn't the great tournament or time they've had, it wasn't anything related to the 4th, it wasn't sports, it wasn't anyone's background or other interests. There was, however, an active spat of calculation to determine how to best profit monetarily from the trip, i.e. determining who would need to lose, who would need to win, and what would need to occur for each player to cash in the most. It was rather disgusting.

I was very happy with the 7 great games I played, I learned from my 2 losses, and had a blast exploring Philly. I did win a cash prize, but it certainly wasn't the focal point of my experience. This outlook was anything but typical.

dazone3: As an aside, watching Nakamura destroy FIDE masters in blitz with a time control of 30 seconds to their 5 minutes was utterly amazing. You can't even see his hands as he moves the pieces and hits the clock. Imagine: Nakamura moving at light speed for an entire game, many moves not even counting down a full second on his clock, reaching a complicated middlegame position, and then, with only 6 seconds left, Nakamura calmly picks up a rook and slowly moves the last move of the game: mate, and a most unusual mate at that. I've never heard a stronger reaction to a game of chess than that of the crowd of spectators after that game.

VinnyRoo2002: How come the organizers can care about money, but the players can't? If you're going to pay an entry fee, I find nothing wrong with trying to make a profit. If your only concern is chess and not money, then why play in Swiss tournaments at all? There are plenty of places to play chess where it's completely free.

Also, I don't think there is anybody playing chess solely for money. I mean to get to 1800 USCF, one must dedicate a certain amount of time to playing chess. I've said this for a long time, if two players of equal strength are playing a chess game and one player is thinking about money and the other chess, the person thinking about chess is going to win.

Lastly, I find it funny that people are saying that in Europe chess isn't so much about the money. For one, I don't see World Championship matches played for free. The players deserve to be paid because they are good at what they do, and players in Swiss tournament sections deserve to be paid for there good performance. Personally, I would love to travel to Gibraltar and play in that tournament, but I don't have the discretionary income to travel to a tournament and lose that much money. I don't understand chess players seeming hate of money, I mean if you look at poker tournaments, players can win millions of dollars, but chess players complain if someone is concerned about winning 5 thousand so that they continue to play in more chess tournaments. It's inane!

dazone3: <VinnyRoo2002> I see your point, and largely agree, but I think you're missing some of the finer details. First, yes, there is nothing wrong with trying to make a profit; in fact it is a motivating factor to play better chess. But I think you can agree that basing the value of the tournament primarily on how much cash you walked away with is backwards. It's like claiming the most important characteristic of a work of art is the amount of money you can obtain by selling it. I think you can also agree that people knowingly playing sections below their actual skill are jerks.

One important point that you miss is that it is really hard to get serious games of chess apart from these huge US opens. Is there anyone on the internet willing to play, much less focus throughout, a 6 hour game of chess? How about at a weekend swiss, or even the local chess club? And despite what chess book publishers would have you believe, the quickest way to improve is by playing long, serious games of chess, and by analyzing said games. I can't speak for your tournament experiences, but after each that I've played in my skill has jumped about 200 rating points.

Strongest Force: dazone3, i agree with you about Nak. He is fun to watch. I wonder if he has played Kasparov in g/3? Gary use to play (late 90s) anonymously at the ICC. A match between these two in g/3 would be unbelievable. Kaspy is the kind of player that would force Nak to play better. Nak would go to new heights of play.

MaxxLange: <it is really hard to get serious games of chess apart from these huge US opens>

I learned how to play tournament chess at a regular Saturday tournament that they used to hold at NC State University back in the 1990's. $8 entry fee, 3 rounds. I won the first prize of $20 or $30 dollars many times in the under 1400 and under 1800 sections there.

Still, it was a shorter time control than you get at the big American swiss tournaments, and the quality of play by rating was lower. There was a relatively small, closed rating pool, with a bunch of A players and experts trading the same rating points back and forth. A lot of the B and A players played very carefully, never risking losing and sticking to locked up positions.

So, it was absolutely a valuable chess experience, aside from dreams of winning money, to pay the big entry fee at the World Open and then get pounded by the C players there. As I said before, a win felt really meaningful, like I had passed the test and beat the best C class rated players in the World.

VinnyRoo2002: First off, I must say I really respect the way you discuss things dazone. You seem very rationale and don't start personal attacks if someone disagrees with something you wrote. For that I commend you. Now onto your post.

I understand that depending on where you live, it may or may not be hard to find long games. Luckily in Las Vegas we have a chess club, so for $30 a year I can play G/100 every Thursday. I know that G/100 isn't as long as tournament time controls, but I feel it is quite sufficient for a long game. Additionally, I have quite a bit of tournament experience, so I'm very jealous if you improve 200 points per tournament.

As for the painting argument, I agree completely. I have placed 1st and 2nd twice in big swiss tournaments and the first thing I always say is my place and how happy I am. The prize money is always of a distant secondary importance. And sandbaggers are unethical in my view, but I must note I do have friends that sandbag. I don't agree with what they're doing, but I don't feel like it's my place to intervene.

Lastly, if you jump 200 points in playing strength in a tournament, but your actual rating only increases 30 points, couldn't it be argued that if you play in the same section that you have an unfair advantage like the competitors you complain of? Example: You are 1820, you gain 30 points, so you are 1850, you play in the U2000, but your playing strength is above 2000. Can you see where the situation becomes sticky?

Whack8888: I agree with MaxxLange -- the fact that the stakes are so big at the World Open may detract from the overall friendliness of the tournament, especially I thought in the first couple of rounds, but as players got 'out of the money' they got a lot friendlier and still put up a great fight over the board.

Playing long games on Saturday in a 3 round Quad is definately fun, and for the most part people give it their all, but it is still not close to how hard people play at the World Open. I know I stepped up my game quite a bit, forcing my way through tiredness etc. and even still, a lot of my opponents were going through even more lines, concentrating even harder etc.

It is somewhat unfortunate that only big money can make people play like they are playing for big money, but that is just a fact of life.

dazone3: <MaxxLange: As I said before, a win felt really meaningful, like I had passed the test and beat the best C class rated players in the World.>

It's a wonderful, and curious feeling. You both know you're not exactly playing grandmaster chess, but you really get a feel for the terrain of a particular battle; the game feels accurate and complex, something worthy of publication (or at least showing off!).

<VinnyRoo2002: You are 1820, you gain 30 points, so you are 1850, you play in the U2000, but your playing strength is above 2000. Can you see where the situation becomes sticky?>

It certainly is a bit sticky. Personally, I couldn't really fault such a player for playing in either section. Most of the winners in, say, the U1800 section would probably do well in the U2000 section; maybe not prize-winning-well, but I'd guess they'd still score at least 50%. Conversely, middle of the line players in the U2000 wouldn't necessarily walk away with the U1800 prize; they'd probably do well, but it would be tough. So much in these big tournaments depends on rest, physical/mental state, ambition, focus, etc. The section lines, skill-wise, seem to be quite blurry. If you look at a player's tournament history and factor in current performance, however, I think flagrant abuses of the system are obvious.

On the other hand, as you mentioned in a previous post, we should be reluctant to demonize the winners. In a class section, someone's going to walk away with 8.5 or 9 points, that's pretty much a given. It's a tough situation.

I've enjoyed discussing this with everyone, as it seems this is an issue of some importance for the health of American chess "culture" at the amateur level.

MaxxLange: My best win at the World Open. I had been studying the Schevinengen with 6 f4! (Kasparov-Nitikin) with my chess teacher, and an actual Russian dude went wrong early. I saw his coach berating him after the game for not knowing Tal's games in this system!

southpawjinx: <dazone3><On the other hand, as you mentioned in a previous post, we should be reluctant to demonize the winners. In a class section, someone's going to walk away with 8.5 or 9 points, that's pretty much a given. It's a tough situation.>

In the 35 year history, no player in any section has ever scored 9 of 9 in the World Open. That would be a tough accomplishment!!

But I see your point, it pretty much never happens. I should've checked on that instead of trusting my vague impression. Often, 8 or even 7.5 is enough to claim a share of 1st. Still, there are plenty of 8.5's. Many of these also go into the last round with 8 wins, and take a draw because it assures clear first (see also the HB Global). You could call these players de facto 9's.

fromoort: My compliments to you people (<dazone3>, <southpawjinx>, <Jim Bartle>, <MaxxLange>, <Whack8888>, <VinnyRoo2002>, etc.) on your civilized debate/discussion, in sharp contrast to the ugly fights over on the Magnus Carlsen page.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.